User talk:Entropy/Paragon Proposal
Oh looksies, its Nephenee @v™ + /talk General Discussion "Only the elitists and PvP junkies say Paragons are imbalanced". True, and that's due to the fact they are rather imba. But I don't mind my para steamrolling everything alongside 3 Necro's (Sabway ftw). BTW: TNTF uses Energy, and I quote: "TNtF will be harder to fuel with slower adrenal buildup." ^^ --- -- (s)talkpage 22:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :And you can't use Energy forever without getting some back through Leadership. Which means using Adrenal skills to get it back "for free". I could reword that. (T/ ) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ::That's much better :) --- -- (s)talkpage 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Comments Let me get this straight, you want to ruin the whole classes abilities everywhere to nerf their effectiveness in certain specialized areas? --Alari 23:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :Hmm, I can tell we have a disagree vote here. (T/ ) 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ::I disagree with the elitist attitude that disregards every other part of the game thats not their own. How will this help the paragon struggling though normal parts of campaigns? Why will anyone want a para in group before the specialized areas? They are already passed over daily.--Alari 23:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :::I don't consider myself a true elitist, because in my mind that means "Plays PvP". Which I don't. But even coming from a PvE standpoint, I agree with the "elitist attitude" on this issue. The point of this is to nerf Paragons, not help them. They are broken in PvP and PvE. If you're struggling through normal parts of campaigns, perhaps Paragon isn't the right class for you, or you have not yet unlocked the godly skills...it's hard to struggle through anything when you're properly set up, H/H or otherwise. Why would anyone want a Para? They wouldn't, not any more or less than another class. That's how it should be. They would retain their imbalanced skills but they would be less hax than before. (Izzy can't balance skills so something else must be done.) Paras are passed over daily by those who fail to appreciate how good they can be...the ignorant, the closed-minded, the traditionalists. Now, if you're talking about a really specialized area, like...The Deep...then you're right. Certain professions will never make a foothold there. But that doesn't apply to Paragons alone. (T/ ) 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :::They fuction a lot better when paired with other para's, but that doesn't happen often. And because they lack that bit of co-operative power, they are overlooked. But even one imbagon can give the same amount of protection a Prot Monk gives without using Energy at all. Pugs just are crazy... H/H ftw --- -- (s)talkpage 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ::::And what if all you can get is a PUG? H/H doesn't work everywhere, and if you need intelligence of humans for a mission and your a para, your pretty much screwed if you cant get some friends to come along. ::::Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to nerf the particular skills, not the entire class?--Alari 23:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :::::Izzy tried, Izzy failed spectacularly. We could let him nerf Leadership like he did Soul Reaping, but I wouldn't want to be around for the backlash. If all you can get is a PUG, you can still pull off a good performance, because skills like TntF/SY require about 0 cooperation. If your teammates are too stupid to stay in range of your shouts, then that's another issue. >.> (T/ ) 23:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ::::::You still don't understand tho, what you suggest doing is going to kill the image paras had in the mind of average GWer. Why will those people want a class with lower physical armor then a warrior on the front lines. Of course paras are unappreciated, and thats never going to change, your proposal will do nothing for the average player and appease some PVE elitist complaints. What is more important to the game, a minority being annoyed or a majority struggling with a otherwise underpowered class? ::::::If this Izzy is the idiot in charge of balancing I have nothing to say of him.--Alari 23:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :::::::Who the hell cares about the average players? I would personally prefer they all rot in hell for festering the world with such idiocy. It'll at least help the environment at the same time Blue.rellik 11:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Melee range, eh... Can someone say "imba?" — Nova — ( ) 23:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :Read: What you're doing will not fix paras, it will change them... and not necessarily for the worse. — Nova — ( ) 23:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ::Well, don't know if this helps paras or not, but I've always wanted to see spears as melee weapons. Throwing sticks ftl.Kemal 12:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Other Ideas Half ranged spears and/or decrease damage of spears by a few points (2 or 3). Thoughts? --- -- (s)talkpage 23:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :Are you serious? Half range, what is that 1 or 2 steps from melee range? Decrease damage? Its basically the weakest weapon in game rivaled only by swords and swords have better attacks to make up for that. --Alari 00:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC) ::It's better than a Bow, even. And Spears are ranged, wich make them superior to Swords any day. --- -- (s)talkpage 11:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC) :::Better then a bow, could you explain this please? A bow both out damages, out ranges and has more interrupts and a much wider variety of skills. --Alari 11:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC) ::::I'm talking DPS wise. Spears have a one cost, permanent IAS wich is upkept by their superior E-Management (no, that's not sarcastic). Range has little to do with wether it's better or not unless you're base ganking, really, and yes, that's where a Bow shines. Stationary targets. A Longbow will be dodged much more often than a spear... Variety of skills, you say? How much more do you see than Apply Poison, DShot, Troll, Nat Stride, Cripshot/BA/Magebane/BHA, and some fillers wich I cba to think of. --- -- (s)talkpage 11:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC) :::::Bow and damage do not belong in the same sentence Blue.rellik 11:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC) ::::::Give me a 1v1 with a para with me on my ranger, I'll out damage it in seconds and assuming none of the "imbagon" defense drop it shortly there after. Theory is great, practice is another thing. --Alari 11:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC) ::::::::If you think 1v1 is a fair gauge of anything* then you don't know GW. 1v1 sidesteps Leadership, how about a 1v1 where your ranger has Veiled Nightmare and the other person doesn't, it's a useless comparison. (*some exceptions, notably including Shiro, Cold as Ice and the norn tournament) -Ezekiel 12:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC) :::::::Lol kekekekekeke. At least learn the difference between spike and DPS kiddo Blue.rellik 11:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC) ::::::::What are you trying to say? A para can out pressure a ranger? Or could out spike one? Bow attacks can deal out same conditions of a spear and apply the same pressure in many ways. Spiking? Bow attacks do a lot more damage then spear attacks. ::::::::Dodging? Short bow and theres very little difference between a spear and arrow flight, that close it hardly matters in about any situation I have ever been in. --Alari 11:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC) :::::::::What am I saying? I' saying learn the difference between pike and DPS kiddo (as I said in my previous message). The reason why paragons, dervishs and warriors are the kings of dps is because their basic auto-attacking already does lots of damage and. A ranger and sin's auto attacking will not scare anyone, they need to make specialized builds to be DPS machines, they're both better off spiking which is main thing they do. So to answer each of your points, a para out pressures a ranger, it does not 'outspike' a bow. Who cares about the damage? Paragons can spam skills because they have the best primary attribute in the game, rangers need to be careful with their energy to a extent and thus cannot spam all their skills on recharge. No, not spiking. No, not dodging. And a shortbows dps still sucks simply because you don't have a viable ias (gogogog rapid fire! epic lulz) and a shortbow is only really viable in PvE, you're not going to use it seriously in any PvP environment Blue.rellik 11:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC) :::::::::First you say a bow outranges it, and now you fall back to the shortest ranged bow, wich has near same range as a spear. Whatever --- -- (s)talkpage 11:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::Uh huh, I'm a hypocrite, a bow is only better then a spear if its at longbow range which sucks cause targets move. Is that the attitude here? Different situations call for different uses. PVP arena match: Ranger with Apply posion shoots burning arrow at spirit spammer casting. With longbow you are never in danger, Can a spear do that? Interrupt ranger with shortbow and say read the wind, thats atleast +10 extra damage, many more interrupts then a spear, and atleast as likely to hit as a spear. ::::::::::You say a spear is overpowered? Go into a town and ask in local what weapon will deal more damage. a Bow, Sword or a Spear, I'd bet the order would be sword->bow->spear--Alari 12:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::Except only recurve bows are the only really viable bows for high-end PvP, not silly RA or AB. The real thing like GvG and HA. The problem with ranger dps (typically apply poison and burning arrow) is that they are conditions and conditions are typically only around for a few seconds if you're playing against good players simply because of restore condition, that negates nearly all the damage a ranger was hoping to achieve. Let's not miss the fact that rangers need to dedicate their skills (and in your case, the elite) just to do decent dps. A spear's auto-attack already does good damage and that's not including any skills or IAS. Also scythes, hammers and axes beat those three for base dps. Blue.rellik 12:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Let me (attempt) to clear this up. Why are paragons imba? DPS? Let's peek around at the facts, comparing the paragon, to say, ranger (due to above discussion)... Purely damage-wise, the Paragon is superior, though the Ranger is more tactical with conditions and interrupts, and some ranger builds can put out lots of damage too. * Rangers have stances, esp. Natural Stride, can help self-defense and Troll Unguent is a good, cheap heal. Mending touch is effective condition removal. So the ranger is more adept at surviving on its own, ganking, etc. due to its self-defense stances, cheap heals, condition removal, as well as by carrying interrupts and conditions. No doubt here that a ranger is an effective, adept, tactical profession to play. So a ranger can hold their own for sure. But what if you are playing in a team, which is the general situation? What profession is more beneficial in overall defense and support terms? * Paragons have spammable, party-wide effects, mostly using adrenaline, which is essentially free and readily available due to ias. * Watch Yourself is an awesome spammable skill that cuts damage to the party by around 35% - it's free to use. It's a skill, which can be permanently kept up, that reduces damage to the party by 35% and actually gives the paragon energy each time it is used. * Leadership is a spectacular attribute that returns the paragon one energy for each ally affected by his/her shouts and chants (limited to (attribute/2), ends up being 6 or so). This attribute allows paragons to gain six energy each time they use an adrenaline based shout or chant. Free energy. How imba is that? Say you have gfte or watch yourself, four adrenaline costs, 4 second recharges. AR reduces spear attack times to once a second. 4 spear throws = 4 seconds, plus 4 seconds for recharge, and you have 6 energy, every 8 seconds. With watch yourself, it's 35% partywide damage reduction. With gfte, the entire party crits (pretty much). Is that not imba? Defensive anthem. Unstrippable aegis, and the cost is essentially nothing with the shouts you are using. Spear attacks are free due to the constant flow of energy from Leadership. This means that while Rangers are, themselves, a durable, adept profession, disrupting the enemy with conditions, interrupts, and holding its own with stances, paragons have a massive dps which can be maintained... and how? it's maintained by giving the entire party buffs for free. Gg. And, Alari... in practise, you wouldn't be alone. You'd have a party with you. Paragon's don't gank. I'm not saying I hate paragons or rangers - in fact, those are my two favorite professions to play. Paragons are awesome, to the point of being imbalanced. I'd hate to see them nerfed, tbh. — Nova — ( ) 21:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 1 Energy for ever 3 points in leadership and 70 armor. Increase bow attack speed. Lower damage on spear to 13-25. Reduce adrenaline gain from Focused Anger so it is 100% at 16. Increase recharge of Vicious Attack. Reduce adrenaline gain from Spear of Fury. Super nerf meta skills.--Relyk 05:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC) idk why u guys are comparing Paragons with Rangers...totally different. Paragon is a type of profession that buffs the team up with some support. Rangers on the other hand are mostly for pressure and interupts. for example: i cant see the rangers adding up 50% blocking ability on the whole party. same goes for paragon: i cant see them interupting foes like shit or maintainable cripple. rangers shouldnt be DPS units, rangers are there for pressure ----[[User:InfestedHydralisk|'InfestedHydralisk']] 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :Did you just put 'rangers' and 'pressure' in the same sentence? Blue.rellik 03:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC) ::i mean interupts, thumpers and stuff --[[User:InfestedHydralisk|'InfestedHydralisk']] 23:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) :::InfestedHydralisk: I was comparing it because some person above commented that rangers had a higher dps or summat than paragons, and that rangers were superior — Nova — ( ) 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC) ::::So this is all about Leadership. Well they can do 1 of 2 things. A) Change leadership so that you can only gain energy in this way x''' times every '''x seconds (similar to soul reaping) or B) Change leadership so that chants/shouts last x'% longer per rank in leadership (similar to spawning power, though they would have to revamp the whole shout line of skills). Just my opinion. -- '[[User:Lann|Lann]] 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Paragons do more damage than rangers? If they both do just vanilla attacks, perhaps. But a ranger who only does vanilla attacks for damage is an idiot, unless using a bunch of non-damage skills for some specialized purpose. Rangers get preparations, and paragons don't. Causing poison or bleeding with every hit, AoE fire damage with every hit, extra armor-ignoring damage, etc. can perhaps double a ranger's base damage, putting it far ahead of what paragons get. When inclined to do damage, rangers can likewise spam attack skills, for considerable extra armor-ignoring damage. Paragons get some attack skills, too, but don't have the energy to spam them, yielding far less of a damage boost than rangers can get. Throw in a bit of damage from a ranger pet, and it's not even close. So paragons can get energy management from leadership? Sure, if you put a lot of points into leadership and bring several shouts or chants. Leadership only has three chants that can be a net gain of energy, two of which are a very small net gain (of which one is elite), and one of which takes eight adrenaline. If you're putting a bunch of points in leadership and a bunch in some other attribute for shouts and chants, then you're not going to have enough points in spear mastery to do much damage. If you're using a bunch of shouts and chants for energy management without points in the skills, then you're using up skill bar slots merely to get to use about as much energy as a ranger (who has expertise to cut energy usage roughly in half, after all) in whatever skill bar slots are left. And perhaps most importantly, let's consider what players actually use in practice. Players tend to figure out which classes they find stronger or weaker and play the former more than the latter. Surely if paragons were so overpowered, the game would be overflowing with them. The definitive in-game poll on class usage is at the rune trader, where paragon runes are far cheaper than those of any other class besides mesmer. We don't need to turn paragons into an alternate version of warriors. There are already three martial weapon melee classes. Let's preserve some variety and not make it four. Quizzical 01:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC) :The game was overflowing with paragons before multiple nerfs. And they don't have to split atts for energy management; "GftE!" and "WY!" give just as much energy with 0 command/tactics as they do with 12 command/tactics. Perhaps rangers can spam energy attacks more, but paragons get adrenaline skills. Not that they don't already have bascally unlimited energy anyway. And while rangers could out-damage a paragon with an offensive build, paragons can deal damage and help the party at the same time. I will agree, however, that I'd rather not see paragons melee'ers. --Shadowcrest 02:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC) ::If they were overpowered at some point in the distant past but no longer are, that's hardly a reason to nerf them now. Even if a paragon brings both watch yourself and go for the eyes and spams them as often as the cooldown allows, that still only gets a paragon about as much energy to use as a ranger gets just from expertise and higher innate recharge without needing to use any skills for it. It does, however, use up two extra skill bar slots. ::Sure, paragons can use defensive skills and deal damage at the same time. Monks and ritualists can do more healing/defense than paragons while dealing damage at the same time. For that matter, elementalists, necromancers, and dervishes can also bring considerable defensive skills and deal damage at the same time. And how exactly does that make paragons the unbalanced class? Quizzical 02:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC) :::They're still amazing now, just not as much as they were. Basically, the part of this section that starts with "Let me (attempt) to clear this up" and ends with "You'd have a party with you. Paragons don't gank." That's in PvP though; in PvE, the ability to maintain "SY!" makes them imba. --Shadowcrest 02:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC) ::::Ok, why is nerfing spears and in affect nerfing everything bout paragons superior to nerfing SY?-- 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC) :::::If the problem is that a paragon using a warrior pve-only skill is unbalanced, then the solution is to nerf that warrior pve-only skill. If a warrior using ursan blessing is unbalanced, does that mean we should nerf warrior weapons? The problem is not class balance, but one of unbalanced pve-only skills. Quizzical 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC) ::::::Does it matter that they're overpowered, I doubt the AI is going to go QQ to anet. Also, this page is one horrible flamefest and people need to chill out a bit. Mr IP 03:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Hey Nephenee's not a Paragon. 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :Close enough. Cress Arvein(Talk) 22:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Wait, what? "...In the whole history of human warfare, there has never been soldiers who fought by throwing spears. Sure, hunters would use it. But did they carry bundles and bundles of spears and just throw them as their only means of offense? Heck no! They had melee weapons, spears or swords. Even in "300", you know. Guild Wars isn't supposed to be realistic by any means, but...this is just ridiculous to be honest. Make Paragons melee range, and it solves the above problems:" - Entropy The only problem I see with your arguement is this little paragraph. You strive to make the game more realistic to Earth history, but acknowledge that the game isn't realistic. So let's say that we keep the Cat-Like beasts with swords and the dwarves, but try to have the Tyrian humans like Earth humans,...oops, you just destroyed the Elementalists, the Necromancers, the Mesmers, the Ritualists, and the Monks. No one could really travel instantly by Shadow Stepping, so let's nerf the Assassins too. Plus also half of the Dervish. My point being, even though making spears melee weapons fixes your problem*, nerfing something to make it more related to reality would require all classes be nerfed for reality reasons. Why? Consistency. The idea of nerfing something just for reality's sake is too broad, unlike nerfing a skill of a specific class, because the skill was either a)being overused with success or b)a key part to a build that was being overused with success. Anyway, that's my two cents. Ezekial Riddle 04:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC) *Disclaimer: Said with a silent In Theory. ""...In the whole history of human warfare, there has never been soldiers who fought by throwing spears." Wrong. -- [[User:Lann|Lann]] 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC) :There were people who fought ONLY with spears? --Shadowcrest 23:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC) ::Where did only come from? -- [[User:Lann|Lann]] 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC) :::To be specific on the only part, the Gauls used spears to defend off the siege from Ceasar in the Battle of Alesia. (yes they threw them). -- [[User:Lann|Lann]] 23:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC) ::::Actually they threw pretty much about everything (axes, swords, spears). They often brought extra weapons just for throwing, to weaken their enemy before engaging. -- [[User:Lann|Lann]] 23:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC) :::::"But did they carry bundles and bundles of spears and just throw them as their only means of offense? Heck no! They had melee weapons, spears or swords. " <--that's where the "only" came from. --Shadowcrest 02:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC) ::::::And scholars didn't conjure fireballs out of thin air. Whats the point there?-- 02:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC) :::::::Ward from Final Fantasy VIII would fight by throwing a harpoon, running over, and picking it up. 02:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Nerf I think someone got crushed by a paragon to say all these things. If you don't like this class, just don't play it. --:-) GlennThePaladin (Talk, ) 18:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)